CHUTIYARAM Accepted Despite Public Morality Concerns

CHUTIYARAM Accepted Despite Public Morality Concerns. The Delhi Trademark Office has recently accepted an application for the registration of the mark ‘CHUTIYARAM’ under Class 30 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, sparking discussions among legal professionals and intellectual property (IP) practitioners. The acceptance, which was published in the latest edition of the Trademark Journal, has raised questions regarding its approval process and the potential legal and ethical implications surrounding its registration.
Examiner's Rationale for Acceptance
An order dated March 4, 2025, issued by Senior Trademark Examiner Balaji, states that the mark is a combination of two arbitrary words, ‘Chuti’ and ‘Ram’. The examiner concluded that the composite mark possesses distinctive characteristics, allowing it to be clearly distinguishable from other trademarks.
Additionally, it was noted that the mark does not bear any direct reference to the applied goods, which include namkeen and biscuits. As a result, objections under Section 9(1) of the Trade Marks Act—which prohibit the registration of non-distinctive, generic, or descriptive trademarks—were waived, leading to the acceptance of the application.
Controversy Over Possible Obscenity and Morality Concerns
While the examiner justified the acceptance based on distinctiveness and lack of direct relation to the goods, legal experts have raised concerns over its compliance with Section 9(2)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. This provision explicitly prohibits the registration of trademarks that are scandalous, obscene, or contrary to public morality.
Despite potential objections under this section, the mark appears to have bypassed scrutiny in this regard. The order further reveals that the application was accepted even though there was no representation from the applicant across four hearings—an aspect that has drawn criticism from IP professionals who question the rigor of the examination process.
Legal and Ethical Implications
The acceptance of ‘CHUTIYARAM’ has ignited discussions on whether trademark law adequately balances distinctiveness with public morality standards. While the examiner deemed the mark as an arbitrary combination of words, critics argue that it may still hold offensive connotations, potentially violating moral and ethical considerations embedded in the Trade Marks Act.
The case is likely to attract further scrutiny, with the possibility of third-party oppositions challenging its registration before the mark proceeds to final approval
The Four-Month Opposition Period
Once advertised, the trademark enters a four-month opposition period. During this time, any third party or stakeholder can challenge the mark’s registration if they find it offensive, deceptive, or in violation of trademark law.
• If no opposition is raised, or if the applicant successfully defends against any objections, the mark proceeds to full registration, culminating in the issuance of a Registration Certificate.
• If an opposition is filed, the applicant must engage in legal proceedings to establish the validity of the mark.
• Failure to counter the opposition may result in rejection of the trademark application.
The Scope of Class 30 in Trademark Registration
The Nice Classification (NCL) system categorizes trademarks based on the types of goods and services they represent. Class 30, under which ‘CHUTIYARAM’ has been accepted, includes a broad spectrum of food products, primarily those made from plant-based ingredients, baked goods, confectionery, and seasonings.
Past Applications and the Trademark Registry’s Approach
A search of the Indian Trademark Registry’s database reveals that the applicant, Sadhna Goswami, has previously applied for other trademarks, including ‘Chutiyawale’ and ‘Chutiyalal’. However, these applications were either objected to or refused, indicating that the Registry has, in some cases, enforced prohibitions on potentially offensive marks.
The acceptance of ‘CHUTIYARAM’ despite similar rejections in the past raises questions about consistency in trademark examination. It also highlights the subjective nature of assessing what constitutes obscenity or offensiveness within trademark law.
Conclusion
The acceptance of the ‘CHUTIYARAM’ trademark has reignited the debate on whether intellectual property laws should allow provocative or potentially offensive trademarks. While distinctiveness is a key factor in trademark registration, public morality concerns and legal restrictions cannot be overlooked.
As the trademark progresses through the opposition period, it remains to be seen whether third parties will challenge its registration. This case serves as a crucial example of the delicate balance between commercial branding, legal compliance, and ethical considerations in trademark law.

The Delhi Trademark Office has recently accepted an application for the registration of the mark ‘CHUTIYARAM’ under Class 30 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, sparking discussions among legal professionals and intellectual property (IP) practitioners. The acceptance, which was published in the latest edition of the Trademark Journal, has raised questions regarding its approval process and the potential legal and ethical implications surrounding its registration.

Examiner's Rationale for Acceptance

An order dated March 4, 2025, issued by Senior Trademark Examiner Balaji, states that the mark is a combination of two arbitrary words, ‘Chuti’ and ‘Ram’. The examiner concluded that the composite mark possesses distinctive characteristics, allowing it to be clearly distinguishable from other trademarks.

Additionally, it was noted that the mark does not bear any direct reference to the applied goods, which include namkeen and biscuits. As a result, objections under Section 9(1) of the Trade Marks Act—which prohibit the registration of non-distinctive, generic, or descriptive trademarks—were waived, leading to the acceptance of the application.

Controversy Over Possible Obscenity and Morality Concerns

While the examiner justified the acceptance based on distinctiveness and lack of direct relation to the goods, legal experts have raised concerns over its compliance with Section 9(2)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. This provision explicitly prohibits the registration of trademarks that are scandalous, obscene, or contrary to public morality.

Despite potential objections under this section, the mark appears to have bypassed scrutiny in this regard. The order further reveals that the application was accepted even though there was no representation from the applicant across four hearings—an aspect that has drawn criticism from IP professionals who question the rigor of the examination process.

Legal and Ethical Implications

The acceptance of ‘CHUTIYARAM’ has ignited discussions on whether trademark law adequately balances distinctiveness with public morality standards. While the examiner deemed the mark as an arbitrary combination of words, critics argue that it may still hold offensive connotations, potentially violating moral and ethical considerations embedded in the Trade Marks Act.

The case is likely to attract further scrutiny, with the possibility of third-party oppositions challenging its registration before the mark proceeds to final approval

The Four-Month Opposition Period

Once advertised, the trademark enters a four-month opposition period. During this time, any third party or stakeholder can challenge the mark’s registration if they find it offensive, deceptive, or in violation of trademark law.

• If no opposition is raised, or if the applicant successfully defends against any objections, the mark proceeds to full registration, culminating in the issuance of a Registration Certificate.

• If an opposition is filed, the applicant must engage in legal proceedings to establish the validity of the mark.

• Failure to counter the opposition may result in rejection of the trademark application.

The Scope of Class 30 in Trademark Registration

The Nice Classification (NCL) system categorizes trademarks based on the types of goods and services they represent. Class 30, under which ‘CHUTIYARAM’ has been accepted, includes a broad spectrum of food products, primarily those made from plant-based ingredients, baked goods, confectionery, and seasonings.

Past Applications and the Trademark Registry’s Approach

A search of the Indian Trademark Registry’s database reveals that the applicant, Sadhna Goswami, has previously applied for other trademarks, including ‘Chutiyawale’ and ‘Chutiyalal’. However, these applications were either objected to or refused, indicating that the Registry has, in some cases, enforced prohibitions on potentially offensive marks.

The acceptance of ‘CHUTIYARAM’ despite similar rejections in the past raises questions about consistency in trademark examination. It also highlights the subjective nature of assessing what constitutes obscenity or offensiveness within trademark law.

Conclusion

The acceptance of the ‘CHUTIYARAM’ trademark has reignited the debate on whether intellectual property laws should allow provocative or potentially offensive trademarks. While distinctiveness is a key factor in trademark registration, public morality concerns and legal restrictions cannot be overlooked.

As the trademark progresses through the opposition period, it remains to be seen whether third parties will challenge its registration. This case serves as a crucial example of the delicate balance between commercial branding, legal compliance, and ethical considerations in trademark law.